G.R. No. 158620 ; October 11, 2006
DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES, INC. and WARFREDO C. BALANDRA, petitioners, vs. MARIANO SALDIVAR, NENA TIMBAL, VIRGINIO VICERA, ALFREDO AMONCIO and NAZARIO S. COLASTE, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Nena Timbal, a rank-and-file employee of petitioner Del Monte Philippines, Inc., was a member of the exclusive bargaining agent, the Associated Labor Union (ALU). The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) contained a union security clause. ALU charged Timbal and four co-employees with disloyalty for allegedly recruiting members to a rival union, the National Federation of Labor (NFL). The sole evidence against Timbal was an affidavit from a co-employee, Gemma Artajo, alleging Timbal encouraged her to attend an NFL seminar and offered her money. Timbal denied the allegations, pointing out that Artajo had a motive to lie as Timbal’s husband had recently filed a collection case against Artajo. An ALU “Disloyalty Board” found Timbal guilty and recommended her expulsion and dismissal. Del Monte terminated Timbal’s employment upon ALU’s demand under the CBA’s union security clause.
Timbal and her co-employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in their favor, but the NLRC reversed, upholding the dismissals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals distinguished Timbal’s case, finding her illegally dismissed while affirming the validity of her co-employees’ termination, albeit with a penalty for procedural due process lapses. Del Monte filed the instant petition, challenging only the ruling on Timbal’s illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of Nena Timbal, based on her expulsion from the union under the CBA’s closed-shop provision, was for a just or authorized cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals, ruling that Timbal was illegally dismissed. The legal logic is that while a union security clause authorizes dismissal for loss of union membership, the employer must still prove, by substantial evidence, that the expulsion was for a valid cause. The cause must relate to the employee’s performance of an obligation to the union under the CBA. Here, the charge against Timbal rested solely on the affidavit of Gemma Artajo, whose credibility was severely undermined by a proven motive of ill will due to the pending civil case filed by Timbal’s husband. Given this strained relationship, Artajo’s uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to constitute substantial evidence of disloyalty. Consequently, ALU’s expulsion of Timbal was baseless, and Del Monte’s reliance on it to terminate her employment was unjustified. The dismissal, therefore, lacked a valid cause. The Court emphasized that an employer cannot blindly enforce a union’s expulsion order but must ascertain the factual and legal basis for the loss of union membership to ensure the dismissal is for an authorized cause under the Labor Code.